Samsung Electronics Co Ltd v. Neodron Ltd

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2020-01610
• Patent #: 7,821,502
• Filed: September 10, 2020
• Petitioner(s): Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Neodron Ltd.
• Challenged Claims: 1-24

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Capacitive Position Sensor
• Brief Description: The ’502 patent discloses a capacitive sensor with column and row electrodes formed on a single surface of a substrate. The invention focuses on an electrode arrangement that uses connections both within the sensing area (e.g., a "continuous spine" connecting column electrodes) and outside the sensing area (e.g., "wrap-around connections" for row electrodes) to reduce the need for crossovers within the active sensing region.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Grummer in view of Tagg - Claims 1-6, 8-14, 16-17, and 20-23 are obvious over Grummer in view of Tagg.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Grummer (Patent 4,233,522) and Tagg (Application # 2003/0067451).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Grummer taught a single-layer capacitive touch panel with an array of row and column electrodes. Grummer’s design, however, required internal "cross over" connections to link broken segments of row electrodes, a feature Grummer itself disparaged as increasing complexity and cost. Petitioner asserted that Tagg taught a solution to this problem by disclosing the use of conductive wires that "wrap-around" the sensing area to connect electrodes at opposing ends, thereby avoiding internal crossovers.
  • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended a POSITA would combine Tagg’s external wrap-around connections with Grummer’s single-layer design to achieve an "ideal" sensor that Grummer expressly desired but did not fully realize: a simple, single-layer architecture without the noted detriments of internal crossovers. This combination would simplify fabrication, reduce costs, and improve transparency, all of which were known goals in the art.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because both references related to capacitive touch sensors and Tagg’s wrap-around connection was a known method for routing conductors. Applying this technique to Grummer’s single-layer layout was presented as a predictable design choice.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Grummer, Tagg, and Gillespie - Claims 7, 15, 18-19, and 24 are obvious over Grummer in view of Tagg and in further view of Gillespie.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Grummer (Patent 4,233,522), Tagg (Application # 2003/0067451), and Gillespie (Patent 5,880,411).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the base combination of Grummer and Tagg by incorporating additional teachings from Gillespie. Petitioner argued that Gillespie taught specific features recited in the remaining challenged claims. For claim 7, Gillespie disclosed using "charge transfer" circuits. For claims 18 and 19, Gillespie disclosed using a processor to calculate the "centroid" of signals to determine touch location more accurately. For claims 15 and 24, Gillespie disclosed disposing an "insulating panel" over the sensor electrodes to provide a keypad.
  • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued that a POSITA would be motivated to incorporate Gillespie’s advanced techniques into the Grummer/Tagg sensor to improve its performance. Gillespie expressly taught that its simultaneous, parallel-sensing charge-transfer methods offered faster response times and greater immunity to electrical interference compared to the sequential scanning methods used in systems like Grummer’s. Adopting Gillespie’s centroid calculation was a known method for improving touch position accuracy.
  • Expectation of Success: Success was expected because Gillespie’s charge-transfer and signal processing techniques were well-known improvements for capacitive sensors and could be readily integrated with the electrode architecture of the Grummer/Tagg combination.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "sensing area" / "active sensing region": Petitioner argued these terms should be construed as "the area defined by the outside edges of the perimeter electrodes." This construction was asserted to be critical because it establishes a clear boundary, allowing for the unambiguous identification of connections that are "outside" the sensing area, a key limitation for the "wrap-around connection" element.
• "wrap-around connection": Petitioner argued this term should be defined as "electrical connections for connecting either column or row electrodes that wrap around other electrodes in the row or column, irrespective of their shape or point of attachment." This construction was proposed to reflect the plain meaning in the context of the patent, which shows various connection geometries.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner noted that discretionary considerations under §314(a) were addressed in a concurrently filed Motion for Joinder. The petition was filed with a request to be joined with a petition filed by Apple Inc. in IPR2020-01331, for which an institution decision had not yet issued.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-24 of the ’502 patent as unpatentable.